I doubt it. He can only reply a word a minute with his cheek muscles now, so most of that must have been careful editing. He's almost completely immobile, so communication is his largest challenge at this point.

I doubt it. He can only reply a word a minute with his cheek muscles now, so most of that must have been careful editing. He's almost completely immobile, so communication is his largest challenge at this point.

I heard that he has quite a sex life, though. Fangirls dig the Hawk-man. Of course, you really don't have to move much for a BJ.

So basically, he's saying that we might create a computer with the autonomy and ability to overrule its human creators.

Yeah, whenever someone comes along and says this, I have to roll my eyes. Sorry Dr. Hawking, but it's very reminiscent of the people who said that the LHC was going to create a black hole and destroy the earth. Sure, it's theoretically possible, but there's a whole caboodle of technical challenges that strongly imply that both events are more in the realm of fantasy than science fiction.

I doubt it. He can only reply a word a minute with his cheek muscles now, so most of that must have been careful editing. He's almost completely immobile, so communication is his largest challenge at this point.

Fubini:So basically, he's saying that we might create a computer with the autonomy and ability to overrule its human creators.

Yeah, whenever someone comes along and says this, I have to roll my eyes. Sorry Dr. Hawking, but it's very reminiscent of the people who said that the LHC was going to create a black hole and destroy the earth. Sure, it's theoretically possible, but there's a whole caboodle of technical challenges that strongly imply that both events are more in the realm of fantasy than science fiction.

Fubini:So basically, he's saying that we might create a computer with the autonomy and ability to overrule its human creators.

Yeah, whenever someone comes along and says this, I have to roll my eyes. Sorry Dr. Hawking, but it's very reminiscent of the people who said that the LHC was going to create a black hole and destroy the earth. Sure, it's theoretically possible, but there's a whole caboodle of technical challenges that strongly imply that both events are more in the realm of fantasy than science fiction.

Stick to causality, big guy.

Actually, the LHC created a whole bunch of teeny, tiny black holes. In fact, it is likely that teeny tiny black holes pop in and out of space all over the place, all the time.

Fubini:So basically, he's saying that we might create a computer with the autonomy and ability to overrule its human creators.

Yeah, whenever someone comes along and says this, I have to roll my eyes. Sorry Dr. Hawking, but it's very reminiscent of the people who said that the LHC was going to create a black hole and destroy the earth. Sure, it's theoretically possible, but there's a whole caboodle of technical challenges that strongly imply that both events are more in the realm of fantasy than science fiction.

Stick to causality, big guy.

He probably lacks the ability to elucidate his reasoning for it, but since he grew up during the Cold War, where there were plenty of "almosts" because of computer glitches, and now that we can crash the stock market almost instantaneously because of pre-defined rules to follow, he might be looking at it like AI isn't beyond the bounds of the next big fark up, especially if we afford the machines trust we wouldn't afford ourselves.

Lsherm:Fubini: So basically, he's saying that we might create a computer with the autonomy and ability to overrule its human creators.

Yeah, whenever someone comes along and says this, I have to roll my eyes. Sorry Dr. Hawking, but it's very reminiscent of the people who said that the LHC was going to create a black hole and destroy the earth. Sure, it's theoretically possible, but there's a whole caboodle of technical challenges that strongly imply that both events are more in the realm of fantasy than science fiction.

Stick to causality, big guy.

He probably lacks the ability to elucidate his reasoning for it, but since he grew up during the Cold War, where there were plenty of "almosts" because of computer glitches, and now that we can crash the stock market almost instantaneously because of pre-defined rules to follow, he might be looking at it like AI isn't beyond the bounds of the next big fark up, especially if we afford the machines trust we wouldn't afford ourselves.

Well, we do once they cause damage. See - flash crashes on Wall Street. The real question is: how much damage can they do before we get to the plug?

That's why no engineer designs e.g. a toaster that can phone in the launch codes to start WWIII.

Your programmable toaster these days could launch a nuclear missile in 1969. But in 1969 the nuclear engineers weren't worried about toasters. And some of those missiles might still be able to be launched by a toaster you get at Wal Mart, provided you get access to the missile.

My point is that it's easy to run right into unintentional consequences even with the best design. No one is exempt, especially over time.

I doubt it. He can only reply a word a minute with his cheek muscles now, so most of that must have been careful editing. He's almost completely immobile, so communication is his largest challenge at this point.

Hah, hardly. Another one of Hawking's recent causes is insisting that we need to start space colonization ASAP.

It seems like a lot of genius scientists enter a phase at the end of their lives where they start to go crackpot. I'm afraid Hawking is hitting his now. His last book, The Grand Design was cringeworthy.

Lsherm:My point is that it's easy to run right into unintentional consequences even with the best design. No one is exempt, especially over time.

It's funny you should mention that. The Air Force has (or had) a supercomputer that is, essentially 1700 PS3s networked together. Which, when you think about it, is a pretty cheap way to make a supercomputer (compared to conventional supercomputers).

Gaming consoles...think about that for a second. If terrorists wanted to get high tech they could easily accomplish this by networking gaming systems, or smart phones, or tablet computers designed for kids.

Yeah, whenever someone comes along and says this, I have to roll my eyes. Sorry Dr. Hawking, but it's very reminiscent of the people who said that the LHC was going to create a black hole and destroy the earth. Sure, it's theoretically possible, but there's a whole caboodle of technical challenges that strongly imply that both events are more in the realm of fantasy than science fiction.

Stick to causality, big guy.

Jaron Lanier had a simple explanation for why it would never happen.

No engineer creates a machine that doesn't do what it's told to do.

Machines rebel today... we unplug them.

Wouldn't a more apt analogy be "no computer programmer writes code that behaves in ways not intended"? Because, uh...

Ambivalence:Lsherm: My point is that it's easy to run right into unintentional consequences even with the best design. No one is exempt, especially over time.

It's funny you should mention that. The Air Force has (or had) a supercomputer that is, essentially 1700 PS3s networked together. Which, when you think about it, is a pretty cheap way to make a supercomputer (compared to conventional supercomputers).

Gaming consoles...think about that for a second. If terrorists wanted to get high tech they could easily accomplish this by networking gaming systems, or smart phones, or tablet computers designed for kids.

Meh, that's my game now - High Performance Computing. The PS3 clusters were a big deal six years ago, and they are still useful even now, as long as your code can be spread across defined nodes.

We just did a demo today to show how making Matlab multiply 2*2 on a grid takes 6 seconds instead of less than one second on your own computer. Researchers need to think through what resources they actually need before they submit jobs.

That's farking depressing. Somewhere along the line, being willfully ignorant and intentionally stupid somehow became as valid as being educated and intelligent.

We're farked in the long run.

"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

Hah, hardly. Another one of Hawking's recent causes is insisting that we need to start space colonization ASAP.

It seems like a lot of genius scientists enter a phase at the end of their lives where they start to go crackpot. I'm afraid Hawking is hitting his now. His last book, The Grand Design was cringeworthy.

The space colonization thing is actually totally accurate. It's going to take us generations to get there, and we need to start as soon as possible. He knows, just like most of us do, that humanity is not going to get their act together in time in order to prevent climate change, and that most likely, we're looking at catastrophic results within the next few centuries. He's absolutely correct to note that having all of humanity living on this planet is not a viable long-term survival strategy for the species.

It's science fiction, but achievable science fiction since pretty much all the requisite technology to achieve it exists in various, albeit very alpha, formats. It'll take a tremendous amount of resources, and that will only reasonably be achieved over the long-term, spreading the costs out over time.

The rogue AI thing isn't something to be concerned about in the short-term, but you can't seriously believe that the whole of the species is going to last centuries down the line with the damages we're doing now. Even if we magically solve the climate issues, we're still going to be living with thousands of nuclear devices and a near-guaranteed mutually assured destruction scenario if (when) someone does something stupid, which is all but certain to happen at some point in the future, distant though I sincerely hope it is. One only has to look at all the near misses over the Cold War to get an idea of how quickly things could go irreparably wrong.

Hah, hardly. Another one of Hawking's recent causes is insisting that we need to start space colonization ASAP.

It seems like a lot of genius scientists enter a phase at the end of their lives where they start to go crackpot. I'm afraid Hawking is hitting his now. His last book, The Grand Design was cringeworthy.

The space colonization thing is actually totally accurate. It's going to take us generations to get there, and we need to start as soon as possible. He knows, just like most of us do, that humanity is not going to get their act together in time in order to prevent climate change, and that most likely, we're looking at catastrophic results within the next few centuries. He's absolutely correct to note that having all of humanity living on this planet is not a viable long-term survival strategy for the species.

No, the possibility of "climate change" in the conventional sense cannot be used to justify a need for space colonization. Nothing that happens to the climate in the next million years could ever make the Earth as inhospitable as the Moon, Mars, or Venus.

Skyrmion:No, the possibility of "climate change" in the conventional sense cannot be used to justify a need for space colonization. Nothing that happens to the climate in the next million years could ever make the Earth as inhospitable as the Moon, Mars, or Venus.

Uh, there are a number of plausible "world-killer" scenarios.

Asteroids are just one example. Currently it's thought that the Earth undergoes a Tunguska-type event every 1000 years. In a million years we'd expect for two 1000-meter wide asteroids to actually strike the earth.

Fubini:Skyrmion: No, the possibility of "climate change" in the conventional sense cannot be used to justify a need for space colonization. Nothing that happens to the climate in the next million years could ever make the Earth as inhospitable as the Moon, Mars, or Venus.

Uh, there are a number of plausible "world-killer" scenarios.

Asteroids are just one example. Currently it's thought that the Earth undergoes a Tunguska-type event every 1000 years. In a million years we'd expect for two 1000-meter wide asteroids to actually strike the earth.

Yeah, that's why I said "climate change in the conventional sense" i.e. greenhouse gasses and global warming. A large asteroid hitting the earth would be different.

Considering the impact that HAL, AM, Skynet, Colossus, et al. have had on geek pop culture, I'm sure the people working in AI aren't completely unaware of the possibility of something going wrong (once the technology gets to that point which is still fairly far in the future). Any sufficiently advanced AI would likely have countless failsafes and kill switches to prevent that sort of thing from happening.

Snapper Carr:Considering the impact that HAL, AM, Skynet, Colossus, et al. have had on geek pop culture, I'm sure the people working in AI aren't completely unaware of the possibility of something going wrong (once the technology gets to that point which is still fairly far in the future). Any sufficiently advanced AI would likely have countless failsafes and kill switches to prevent that sort of thing from happening.

Skyrmion:Snapper Carr: Considering the impact that HAL, AM, Skynet, Colossus, et al. have had on geek pop culture, I'm sure the people working in AI aren't completely unaware of the possibility of something going wrong (once the technology gets to that point which is still fairly far in the future). Any sufficiently advanced AI would likely have countless failsafes and kill switches to prevent that sort of thing from happening.

Ah, but could the AI convince you to let it out of the "box"?

Given that people can be convinced to reveal their passwords and other such information: yes.

Skyrmion:No, the possibility of "climate change" in the conventional sense cannot be used to justify a need for space colonization. Nothing that happens to the climate in the next million years could ever make the Earth as inhospitable as the Moon, Mars, or Venus.

True, but if humanity were of a mind to terraform Mars (just an example), the technologies used to remediate a hostile planet's environment to make it more suitable to human life could also be applied to remediating the damage we've made to Earth's environment.

Heck even creating efficient and effective technology to scrub CO2 out of a sizable colony's atmosphere could be used to scrub CO2 from the Earth's atmosphere.

That's farking depressing. Somewhere along the line, being willfully ignorant and intentionally stupid somehow became as valid as being educated and intelligent.

We're farked in the long run.

Well yes. That's how sexual reproduction works.

As far as being doomed by our stupidity... just remember how far stupidity has gotten us. And P.S., there hasn't been any point in history that's had it's shiat together more than we have it together today. Scary and reassuring, all wrapped up in a noodle.

Ambivalence:Skyrmion: No, the possibility of "climate change" in the conventional sense cannot be used to justify a need for space colonization. Nothing that happens to the climate in the next million years could ever make the Earth as inhospitable as the Moon, Mars, or Venus.

True, but if humanity were of a mind to terraform Mars (just an example), the technologies used to remediate a hostile planet's environment to make it more suitable to human life could also be applied to remediating the damage we've made to Earth's environment.

Skyrmion:Ambivalence: Skyrmion: No, the possibility of "climate change" in the conventional sense cannot be used to justify a need for space colonization. Nothing that happens to the climate in the next million years could ever make the Earth as inhospitable as the Moon, Mars, or Venus.

True, but if humanity were of a mind to terraform Mars (just an example), the technologies used to remediate a hostile planet's environment to make it more suitable to human life could also be applied to remediating the damage we've made to Earth's environment.

Well then I guess we wouldn't need to go to Mars.

We will always need to go somewhere else. We will never be content with just what we have here on Earth.

Ambivalence:Skyrmion: No, the possibility of "climate change" in the conventional sense cannot be used to justify a need for space colonization. Nothing that happens to the climate in the next million years could ever make the Earth as inhospitable as the Moon, Mars, or Venus.

True, but if humanity were of a mind to terraform Mars (just an example), the technologies used to remediate a hostile planet's environment to make it more suitable to human life could also be applied to remediating the damage we've made to Earth's environment.

Terraforming Mars is waste of time, materials, etc. There is nothing on Mars that is not available in abundance in the minor planets. And there is plenty in the minor planets that is lacking on Mars.

Mars will never sustain an atmosphere viable to life. So any life would be living in an artificial bubble. And as Mars has not magnetic field, it would have to be a radiation shielded bubble. And even taking gravity in consideration, Mars' gravity would have to artificially augmented to maintain the human body. All of this is just as easy to do (if not easier) on a space platform.

A deep space station would have a tiny escape velocity, compared to the planet Mars. Ergo: we could send stuff back from it. And we can control its orbit to put it in an advantageous location for routing material from Earth to space and vice verse.

Mars is cool and all, but it's a dead end.

Heck even creating efficient and effective technology to scrub CO2 out of a sizable colony's atmosphere could be used to scrub CO2 from the Earth's atmosphere.

We have technology to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere. Hell, we have several. The key is scale. There are things that we can do for a finite volume of air that is utterly dwarfed by the immenseness of a planetary atmosphere. Humans are pulling that feat off today because we are producing CO2 as a byproduct of virtually every energy conversion we perform. That's terawatts of electrical power generation. And terawatts of mechanical energy produced by vehicles. Even if the process of converting CO2 into something less harmful cost 1% of the energy we release in making the CO2, that's still gigawatts to terawatts of energy.

Ambivalence:Skyrmion: No, the possibility of "climate change" in the conventional sense cannot be used to justify a need for space colonization. Nothing that happens to the climate in the next million years could ever make the Earth as inhospitable as the Moon, Mars, or Venus.

True, but if humanity were of a mind to terraform Mars (just an example), the technologies used to remediate a hostile planet's environment to make it more suitable to human life could also be applied to remediating the damage we've made to Earth's environment.

Heck even creating efficient and effective technology to scrub CO2 out of a sizable colony's atmosphere could be used to scrub CO2 from the Earth's atmosphere.

It seems like it would be wiser to terraform the Earth's inhospitable regions before trying to terraform another, far less livable, planet. Reverse the deserts, restore the ice caps and clean up pollution and toxic damage we've caused first and then, if the Earth is still beyond hope, look elsewhere. I doubt if any technology that could terraform a barren rock like Mars or the Moon would fail to be enough to fix Earth, though.

Pattuq:It seems like it would be wiser to terraform the Earth's inhospitable regions before trying to terraform another, far less livable, planet. Reverse the deserts, restore the ice caps and clean up pollution and toxic damage we've caused first and then, if the Earth is still beyond hope, look elsewhere. I doubt if any technology that could terraform a barren rock like Mars or the Moon would fail to be enough to fix Earth, though.

I don't disagree. technologies developed here on earth could facilitate space exploration and technlogies developed in the process of space exploration could be used to facilitate improvements here on earth.